Skip to main content

About your Search

20130216
20130224
STATION
MSNBCW 19
MSNBC 17
CSPAN 11
CSPAN2 10
CNNW 6
CNN 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
KQED (PBS) 2
WETA 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
LINKTV 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 93
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 93 (some duplicates have been removed)
to reform the economy and government spending soon, the u.s. could find itself in the same terrible economic situation as many european countries do today. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you john for your very kind introduction and the invitation to speak at the heritage foundation today. it's a great privilege to be here. i have always been a great admirer of heritage and the council and in many cases the friendship of many people here at heritage for a very long time i have also admired the way that heritage works across policy areas so that you really do here and integrated message. not least among which i think is the intention of the heritage foundation to the power of culture, by which i mean people believe ideas, habits and expectations in the way that these achieve some form of institutional expression. this issue of culture and how it relates to the economy is at the heart of my book, "becoming europe" because at one level becoming europe is certainly about what has happened in europe and why it is now regarded as the sick man of the global economy. my book is also a
leader but brazil is one of the most important emerging economies for the whole global economy it's one of as we call them the bricks the emerging economies that has the chance to structure how the economy is going to look going forward. when you think about the countries but obviously the united states when you think about the countries along the pacific rim of latin america they make connect more to the economy of asia. i was always struck when i would go to something called the summit of the americas which is about latin america and the caribbean and we would have these discussions and travis would take off and everybody would sort of what ever. but then almost a week or two weeks later we would go to the asia pacific economic council. there it is the pacific rim countries of chellie and the pacific rim all the way to canada and all the way out through japan and china and korea and the conversation was completely different. was about global trade and freeing trade. and i actually always thought that in that sense the country had more in common with their asian counterparts than their
on republicans warning that our economy, jobs, lives, could be in danger, if these scheduled cuts across the board go through. but the latest numbers show if the automatic reductions take place, there will be 85 billion dollars in cuts this year. that's equal to what the government spends in nine days. even if it happens, the government is projected more than last year, so he you see, we're talking about a decrease in the increase in spending and you may be asking yourself how can we survive and live on, with just the paltry amount of spending? well, where would we look for the example? how about last year when we did it just fine? all this leading to questions about how the fallout could be so dramatic. so dire, so awful. when the total federal budget is actually increasing. chris stirewalt is our national digital news editor. how can we do it? where can we find the historical example of the surviving on a budget that's cut in this manner. oh, last year. i mean, what's the answer to that. why are the politicians, you know, chicken littling us? >> well, remember this, if there , if there
' president's day sale on the economy a total bust. tonight the truth on our spending problem. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> there you go. good job. >> four years after the stimulus saved us from depression, republicans are dragging us into recession. >> spending is the problem. >> tonight the facts versus republican fantasy on the economy and the sequester. >> we have had a massive cover-up on the part -- >> but a massive cover-up of what? >> john mccain is at it again. >> do you care whether four americans died? >> retired colonel lawrence wilkerson on the blind republican rage over benghazi. >>> the luvgov is hitting the trail again. >> i'm a bottom line kind of guy. it's going to hurt. >> we'll show you his questionable ad. >>> plus, marco rubio disagrees with his own immigration plan because the president likes it. >>> mississippi finally got around to banning slavery this month. >>> and the oscar-nominated movie "silver linings playbook" is shining new light on treating mental illness. director david o. russell joins me tonight for the conversation. good to have you with u
/bowles a serious plan. tonight i'll expose how it's seriously going to kill the economy. liberals, hold your ground. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to protect some special interest tax loophole? >> the president takes his case to the people as the two salesmen for republican austerity are mobbed by protesters. >> pay your share of taxes. >> pay your tax. >> tonight, "time's" michael grunwald, jonathan alter and katrina vanden heuvel on how to dismantle the austerity bomb. >> 10,000 bucks? >>> the godfather of the conservative movement offers romney pocket change to anyone who can save the republican party. i'll show you why it's a lost cause. >>> plus, a virginia pizza shop owner uses a sick promotion to sell pies and push the nra agenda. >>> the beltway press takes their eye off the ball, complaining about bohm and tiger woods. the least popular senator is desperately attacking ashley judd. and david corn, the co-author of "hubris" and co-author of the msnbc documentary tells me what was left out. >> i
, they are not fair. they will hurt our economy. they will add hundreds of thousands of americans to the unemployment rolls. this is not an abstraction. people will lose their jobs. the unemployment rate might tick up again. >> president obama used his bully pulpit this week to call on congress to avoid, get this, sequestration. that's washington nomenclature for automatic spending cuts due to go into effect on march 1, next friday. on that date, both military and domestic programs will feel the impact of the monumental $85 billion cuts slated for this year, 2013, alone. not only does the president condemn the cuts, but his administration is also sounding the alarm. first, the secretary of state. >> but in these days of the looming budget sequester that everyone actually wants to avoid, or most, we can't be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat, working to help other countries create order is strongest when america at least puts its own fiscal house in order, and that has to be now. >> next, the secretary of defense. >> members of congress need to understand t
that trend and take one oracle -- 1-2% of our economy every year to convert to green energy, we would be much further ahead. i'm so tired of the republican party to always be anti-green. we have an issue on this planet. i would like to see some things done in regard to that. green energy is important, and we should pursue it. thank you so much. guest: nobody is saying that it is not important. what they are seeing is that the federal government does not need the department of energy -- it does not need to be putting money into loan programs for companies like solyndra and fiskar. others -- they have gone bankrupt the. have gotten hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for loan programs and all of those companies that got those loans with that taunt of money have gone bankrupt. something is wrong with the vetting process and something is wrong with technology that it is not working in the marketplace. i had solar panels on my house in tennessee as a test keys thursday as a test case 30 + years ago. they're looking to see if we could get enough heat units per day in solar panels. we never got
are here to stay. we understand that. we have to play a role, because the status of our economy and our fiscal capacity is a key piece of our strength and a nation, and we understand that. but our domestic fiscal constraints do not diminish budding threats overseas. many of the challenges we face are in headlines at every day, whether the aggressiveness of north korea and iran, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, continued turmoil across the middle east and north africa, or with a growing threat of cyber attacks. as a joint force and an army, we must make decisions based on the context of the security environment and the historical experience, not false assumptions about the future. last year the department of defense to build a collaborative process to publish a 2012 defense strategy. the strategy calls for on the department to invest in the capabilities critical for future success cannot resist the temptation to sacrifice readiness to retain force structure, rebuilt readiness in areas that would be emphasized over the past decade. a fundamental role in 10 of 11 identifie
, ignores an economy that is struggling, remember, it contracted in the last quarter, and it's projected to contract some more in the first and second quarter, ignored 23 million people who are out of work, ignored the fact that unemployment rates are going to go up. ignored 86 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. i'm embarrassed about that because the people in office that could do something about it are not doing anything about it. >> herman cain. >> and don't attack rush limbaugh-- >> herman cain you're a successful businessman and you've just made a bottom line argument that i love. if you look back at the last quarter of last year, what do you see? the defense department pulled spending and what happens? the gdp, the economy slows down. now we're approaching a sequester and pull money helter skelter from every skek tore, what do you think it's going to do to our economy. >> juan, you're wrong. >> it's going to hurt america. >> juan, you're dead wrong. those weren't the factors that caused the economy to contract. >> that's what the economy said, herman. >> those are the wrong e
change that perception. let's focus on a reality. by reality i mean economy of our political system. this election has its own economy. the economy as two components. one is an economy of stop, and the other is the economy of extortion. the economy of stop drives us to understand to point to the instability in our government. any system where the tiniest slice of the public dominates in the funding produces a system where a tiny number of americans can effectively block any change. it will always be that or at least almost always be that in the context where some much dependence exists on such a tiny number of participants. it is just a couple thousands who have to band together with these contributions to effectively make it possible that in our structure of separated powers you can block any change. this is an economy that depends on polarization. people point to polarization as the cause. it is an effect. it depends on the dysfunction, because the more dysfunctional the institution is, the easier it is to sell this opportunity to block. this function is the business model, which
, then when you achieve those economies of scale, then they are strictly price competitive in the marketplace. if you can allow, ma continue to march down that technology pathway, then we think that eventually you can see a scenario where you don't need them. we hope. you know, and i think we have seen that in our technologies. each of our technology pathways have an endpoint that is below the current prices of the income the technology they are competing with. i think you'd see sort of a natural exit point right there. >> thanks. i will take one last question. >> thanks. thanks very much for the conference. i have a question for kevin. unless i missed it, one of the priorities you did not mention was a clean energy standard, and that was a priority of previous committee chairman, and wondered why that wasn't one of the priorities of senator wyden. and if the answer is, it is no chance of passing the house, or it has no chance of passing the house -- i would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that and your thoughts on why energy standard is not a viable strategy no. >> sure. i think ac
the state of the economy, he probably should have lost and he won not just because of mitt romney's inadequacies, but because he built the finest political organization in recent american history with more than 1 million volunteers. >> you share that in common with barack obama. his hometown of chicago. your hometown is chicago. >> i met barack obama in 2002 and at that time he had just lost for the house of representatives. he told me when we first met when my aunt had died and he came over to pay respects to my cousin's house. he said he was going to run for the u.s. senate. i remember thinking, wow, that's a lot of nerve. he just lost for the house and he is running for the senate? yes, i knew him and i knew a lot of the people around him in chicago for many years because i grew up in chicago politics. my mother was a politician. my mother new barack obama in the '80s. so, you know, in some ways i'm familiar with the political environment that he came out of and i think that, you know, it's giving me a little bit more insight going back with these folks for quite a long period
for his overspending and they're creating real peril for the american economy, long-term substantive peril, all of the stuff that you just had on. this is been going on for, 20, 30 years, we're going to lose the statue of liberty and the buildings are going to fall down and no police on the street and i heard that when i was mayor of new york, i had to cut 2.3, 2.4 billion and they tried to make it sound like the city was going to disappear. we cut it, the city is better off than it's been before. and fiscal discipline is something that a president is going to have to bring to government. if he couldn't, it's hard for the legislator to do it. he's been fiscally the most undisciplined president in the united states. >> couple of things, the fact that he doesn't seem it remember it was his white house idea and he okayed it on the sequester and either means he has a bad memory, which is not a good sign or he's trying to be petty or trying now that he finds himself in hot water to blame somebody else that looks petty. the second thing for the life of me, i don't understand this and see if, if
a transition to -- there are major economies going in the direction of low carbon. we are pushing the us to go in that direction. there is opportunity for canada to diversify its economy and become low carbon. and europe, they're looking at a directive. there is an opportunity i think to view the developments. is this a momentous change that we are looking at to start driving this? what does that mean for that relationship? i think the economic growth and the job opportunities are much bigger and greater than where we would find the fossil fuels sector. >> rupert murdoch, the guy who owns fox news and the wall street journal, he tweeted against of a keystone and said that we do not need. we have cleaner, natural gas from fracking. what is the implication of this domestic boom? what crowd out the need for energy from canada? what does it mean that the u.s. is talking about being energy independent? >> it was separated into two areas. natural gas and homes. we are looking at surpluses. to say whether it will crowd canadian gas out of the u.s. market, i think you will see u.s. gas finding its way
that is effectively transferring money from savers to prop up these banks. that's the real impact to our economy. that's why pension funds are in trouble. it's a real fundamental problem here. >> but we can put on the table both you experts. we've got a senator from massachusetts who is should we say unspoiled and ready to do the work of the people on the banking committee. fair enough? >> absolutely. >> it's going to be fun. martin smith, david cay johnston, great to have you with us tonight. >>> remember to answer tonight's question there at the bottom of the screen. share your thoughts with us on twitter and at ed show on facebook. we want to know what you think. >>> ten years ago, the bush administration lied us into a war. rachel maddow and david corn are here to preview their new special that will make you really look at this story in a whole new different way. stay with us. >>> hans blix reported that his teams found no weapons inspection and sees sign iraq is starting to cooperate. in a further slap at powell, blix contradicted u.s. intelligence that issue has hidden weapons interest the inspe
-the-board cuts. >> please, i would like to finish what i'm saying here. 750,000 jobs will be lost. the economy will shrink by 6%, and what we've produced is very simple. it's closing loopholes. the only people who support them are the people who benefit them from them, oil and gas loopholes, the idea that businesses shouldn't get breaks by sending jobs overseas, the idea that someone who makes over $1 million should pay a higher rate than others, and whether it's right on the eve of sequestration or if god forbid it has to take effect for a few days, the devastating effects will be so strong. the president will be out there on his bully pulpit that just like on the fiscal cliff republicans will come on board. they have no choice. their arguments are untenable and don't meet the favor of hardly anyone other than themselves and the few whose special interests they are protecting. >> let me move you on to immigration simply because we now see the white house sort of draft immigration bill, at least the skeleton of it, has been leaked out there. we know that democrats had been saying to the white
're not necessary. they'll hurt our economy. they'll raise the unemployment rate. and the reason is because congress has not been able to compromise on a deficit reduction package that's more sensible. >> yesterday the president insisted sudden across-the-board spending cuts would be unnecessary and damaging and he made sure that first responders were there to punctuate the message. let's watch and listen. >> border patrol agents will see their hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. >> and keeping up the drum beat, house minority leader nancy pelosi will hold hearings on how middle class families could be hurt by the spending cuts that could kick in march 1st. joining me is u.s. congressman adam shiff of california. i was so impressed by the way you explained all of this this morning on msnbc. i'd like you to do it again. your take on what this fight is ab
in a modern, global economy that, our children might achieve their dreams, and today, more than ever, those aspirations are within our reach. thanks to a greater trust between tribal nations and the united states, we're in a moment of real possibility. in president obama and his administration, we have a partner committed to strengthening tribal sovereignty, who believes in our right to determine our own course, who understands what we've always known to be true, that indian nations are best governed by indian people. [applause] this partisanship and partnership extends throughout the federal government, on both sides of the aisle, because indian issues are not partisan issues. the results has had a meaningful, measurable impact on indian people's lives. today, more tribes are managing resources instead of managing poverty programs. residents of rural oklahoma drive to our health facilities first because they offer the best services around. other governments seek our traditional knowledge of natural resources. non-native people come to us for jobs and educational opportunities and companies
industries and economies, the world's largest trade mostly predictable ally and always dependable friend. but some major changes on the horizon could present new challenges for the relationship. let's begin with energy. right now nearly all of canada's oil and gas exports are to the united states. that represents about 10% of u.s. energy needs. but that's about to change. neutrally technologies have unlocked new supplies of crude oil and natural gas from previously unreachable reservoirs across the u.s.. >> after years of talking about, we are finally poised to control our own energy future to disconnect some experts predict the united states will be energy independent by the year 2035. how will that affect canada's 40 billion-dollar oil bench and what will energy independence and for u.s. foreign policy? and what does it mean for pipelines? the canadian government is anxiously awaiting a decision from the white house on the proposed keystone xl pipeline. it would carry out the oil sands nearly 2,000 miles to refineries on the u.s. gulf coast. the secretary of state john kerry who has lo
then the deficit will begin to close. but all of these choices in the sequester will shrink the economy rather than grow it. and the second thing is, policy particularly president's healthcare policy, are already on the road to closing our deficit. to narrowing it and making it smaller because it is going to affect healthcare cost. >> no doubt about it. e.j., when you alluded to that in your column -- i want it read e.j. to e.j. republicans want it place as much distance between themselves and the 2012 election as they possibly can. from their perspective, the more months we put away on these dumb fake emergencies, the better. as obama's clout slowly dimirnishes, so will his opportunities to pret his priorities. there is always a little personal interaction here, e.j. >> i think is personal, and i also think it has to do with policy and ideas. because every moment we spend -- we're sitting here talking about this fake crises, and it is a fake crisis, when we aught to be talking about other things. like how do we get people back to work, raise equality, upward mobility. i think part of what is going
sanctions been on iranian behavior. >> well they certainly affected the economy, had a huge effect on the economy and led to the devaluation of the iranian currency. but it's an excellent question because there's some talks coming up now in kazakhstan of all places in late february involving the eu, the united states and the iranians. and so this is going to be a venue in which people are going to be able to see to a certain extent how serious iran is about negotiating on limits on its nuclear program. there hasn't been negotiations for some significant period of ti. and this is an opportunity to test the iranians. i think this initial round is not going to prove much but certainly over the next six months, i think there will be an ample opportunity to see if there is an intent on the iranian part to reach some sort of compromise. >> rose: leon panetta and others have said the following. we have no information that there's been a decision on the part of the iranian government and the most influential people there to builds a nuclear weapon and a missile that will deliver it. what
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 93 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)